People v. Brown
72 N.E.3d 444
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In March 2012 Will County charged Christopher Brown and issued an arrest warrant while he was already in Cook County custody. A habeas petition caused his first Will County appearance on May 9, 2012.
- On May 9, 2013 Brown pleaded guilty to home invasion and was sentenced to 11 years with presentence custody credit from May 9, 2012 to May 9, 2013 (365 days).
- Brown later filed a pro se motion construed as a motion to correct the mittimus seeking (1) an extra 41 days’ credit from March 29, 2012 (date charged/warrant issued) to May 9, 2012, (2) vacatur of $100 Trauma Center Fund and $100 crime lab fees, and (3) $5/day credit against fines.
- The trial court denied the motion; the State opposed the extra credit but later conceded errors as to the Trauma Center and crime lab fees and agreed Brown should receive $5/day credit.
- The appellate majority found Brown was in simultaneous custody as of March 29, 2012 and therefore entitled to the additional 41 days’ credit; it vacated the two fees and remanded to recalculate monetary assessments. Justice Wright dissented, faulting the record for lack of certified Cook County custody records and arguing forfeiture as to some fee challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown is entitled to presentence credit beginning March 29, 2012 (41 additional days) | Denied; State argued the contested time predated charges on this case or that credit was governed by plea terms | Brown argued simultaneous custody began when charged/warrant issued (Mar 29, 2012) so credit should start then | Held: Brown entitled to additional 41 days; simultaneous custody rule applies (credit from charge/warrant date) |
| Whether Trauma Center Fund and crime lab fees are proper | Initially imposed; State later confessed error | Brown argued fees improper because not convicted of offenses permitting them | Held: Vacated both fees (State confessed error) |
| Whether Brown is entitled to $5/day presentence custody credit against fines | State conceded Brown should receive $5/day credit | Brown sought $5/day credit for presentence custody (406 days total) to offset fines | Held: Accepted State’s concession; apply $5/day credit and remand to recalculate fines/costs |
| Whether Brown forfeited challenges or must supply certified custody records | State and dissent asserted record lacks certified Cook County custody proof and issues may be forfeited | Brown relied on trial record, DOC webpages, and State’s concession of custody | Held: Majority accepted trial record and State’s brief acknowledging Cook County custody; declined to require certified records; rejected forfeiture of credit claim |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. People, 357 Ill. App. 3d 1070 (Ill. App. Ct.) (simultaneous custody credit principle extended to charge/warrant date)
- Robinson v. People, 172 Ill. 2d 452 (Ill. 1996) (simultaneous custody entitles offender to credit on both cases)
- Johnson v. People, 401 Ill. App. 3d 678 (Ill. App. Ct.) (credit for time served cannot be forfeited)
- Williams v. People, 384 Ill. App. 3d 415 (Ill. App. Ct.) (plea agreements can bar credit when expressly provided)
- Seesengood v. People, 266 Ill. App. 3d 351 (Ill. App. Ct.) (pre-Robinson case on warrant service and custody timing)
- Chamberlain v. People, 354 Ill. App. 3d 1070 (Ill. App. Ct.) (applies Robinson rule to charge/warrant date)
- Jones v. People, 397 Ill. App. 3d 651 (Ill. App. Ct.) (Children’s Advocacy Center fee characterization)
- Graves v. People, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (Ill.) (limits on statutory fees/costs)